"Radical Fatherlessness" In The Black Community
I keep calling for it -- that single motherhood in the black community, especially (with the highest out-of-wedlock rates of any community) must be stigmatized by black leaders. From the Globe and Mail from 2005:
Who is doing the killing and who is being killed in the wave of reckless public violence that has struck Toronto? Black boys and young men with no fathers in their homes. Yet as politicians at all three levels and black community leaders scramble for answers to the anarchy, no one has dared talk about the crisis of fatherlessness in the black community.The silence is inexcusable. Growing up without a father present is now the norm for many black children in Canada, particularly those of Jamaican ancestry. Nearly half of all black children under 14 in Canada have just one parent in the home, compared to slightly under one in five of Canadian children as a whole, census figures from 2001 show. Two in three Jamaican-Canadian children in Toronto are being raised by a single parent. The U.S. trend of "radical fatherlessness" -- in which the majority of children in an apartment building, on a street or in a neighbourhood lack fathers -- is hitting Toronto like a tsunami.
Other countries have begun to acknowledge that the widespread absence of fathers contributes to crushing rates of school failure, teen pregnancy and violence. In Britain, Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, who is black, last month criticized the "almost casual acceptance" that most black children grow up fatherless.
...Some may argue that it takes a village to raise a child. But the truth is that the urban public-housing village is drenched in social toxins such as drugs, violence and poor role models. And in that toxic village, fatherless boys are left to themselves to determine what it means to be a man. Where do they look? To one another, and to those of influence in the public realm such as U.S. gangsta rapper Fifty Cent, himself a fatherless boy whose vision of masculinity glorifies lethal violence.
More of that, please.
In a 2008 piece in The Weekly Standard, Duncan Currie writes:
The connection between family breakdown and child poverty is well established. In a 1991 American Sociological Review article, David J. Eggebeen and Daniel T. Lichter estimated that if black family composition had remained constant from 1960 to 1988, the black child poverty rate in 1988 would have been 28.4 percent instead of 45.6 percent. If black family composition had remained constant from 1980 to 1988, Eggebeen and Lichter said, the black child poverty rate in 1988 would have been 40 percent instead of 45.6 percent."This implies that changing black family structure in the 1980s accounted for roughly 65 percent of the increase in official poverty among black children," they noted. "Black family shifts in the 1980s also accounted for 51 percent of the increase in deep poverty, and about 90 percent of the growth in relative child poverty." Family breakdown also had an intensifying effect on the child poverty rates of whites, but it "had a much greater effect on the child poverty rates of blacks."
...More recently, a 2002 study by Rector and two of his Heritage colleagues concluded that "if marriage were restored to 1960 levels," the black child poverty rate "would fall by nearly a third." A separate 2002 study by Urban Institute economist Robert Lerman, which relied on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, found that "married couple households were much more likely to avoid poverty than all other types of households," and that "the apparent gains from marriage are particularly high among black households."
Due to America's racial history, blacks were uniquely vulnerable to the debilitating cultural trends of the post-1960s era and to the perverse incentives created by the federal welfare system. And indeed, today it is culture--not racism or a dearth of economic opportunities--that poses the biggest threat to black family structures, and thus to black progress.
When I talked last at the inner-city school, I told the kids that getting pregnant or getting a girl pregnant before you're established as a person, and in your career, and married is damaging to any children you might have (they are forced to grow up in poverty, etc.). The teacher gave me a gentle talking-to afterward, and said they were all kids from single mother homes (I'd guessed that) so it was better not to say that. Well, I think somebody has to. That talk is way, way, way overdue.
Oh, wonderful. We're going to be beset by the trolls of Sadly, No again.
Nice idea. But which African-Americas except for Bill Cosby and (in one of the few things he did right) President Obama is going to address the problem of fatherlessness in the black community?
We've got to stop looking to black leaders to do this. It's obvious, they have no intention of doing it, and it reinforces this "us and them" mindset. I think it would be better if the message was packaged as a multiracial project. Find reps of all races to campaign against fatherlessness and send the message to the entire population, not just one segment of it.
It's not going to gain traction as the "black population has this problem and black leaders need to address it" campaign. It will be viewed as discrimination and those leaders who step up will be dismissed as Uncle Toms.
Remember Jesse Jackass's overheard threat to emasculate the President? (Joke's on Jackson; that's been done.) Remember the tepid reception that Bill Cosby's "speak English" tirade got?
The leaders of the black community aren't going to subject themselves to that kind of reception. It's sad and ironic, too. They have influence, until they try to exercise it, then they lose it.
Patrick at November 1, 2010 2:50 AM
There is no better indication of mental illness than when someone says you can't say something about a problem - while they support serious public efforts to perpetuate it.
Schools down here put everybody on the "free lunches" program, because they get money for it. There's no need for parents, period. Right?
Radwaste at November 1, 2010 2:51 AM
One of the many negative aspects of Progressivism is that you are now scolded for telling the truth because you might hurt someone's feelings. You said the teacher gave you a gentle talking to. Many times people are crucified for telling the truth.
It seems that feelings over-ride truth these days. When all these single moms receive money confiscated from working citizens and turn out mostly dirtbag adults and children no one is suppossed to say anything.
I'm glad you spoke up.
Ann Coulter also had the b*lls to address the devastating effects of single motherhood in her book Guilty.
David M. at November 1, 2010 5:18 AM
Two mothers = just as good... Right, Amester?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 6:17 AM
Or is it just the white kids who don't need Daddies? (Or Mommies?)
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 6:17 AM
I grew up fatherless, and the handful of father-figures that were available to me (AKA mom's boyfriends) ranged from indifferent to abusive. Not such a great childhood. But things got better after my mother abandoned me and I found myself in foster home - and with friends whose own parents took me under their wings.
My extended parental family and friends all gave me the same message, e.g. that I can choose to be who I want to be, and decide for myself what life I wish to have. Nothing, they told me, about my upbringing or shoddy parents determines who I choose to become. Simply decide to be a certain kind of man, they said, and then be that man.
By now I'm a father of three, and in a wonderful turn of events am also an "At Home Dad". I jokingly tell people that if I'd known kids were going to be so much fun, then I'd've started having them in high school.
Life can be very, very good. And neglected boys can grow up to be good fathers.
Jonir at November 1, 2010 6:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/01/radical_fatherl.html#comment-1774924">comment from Crid [cridcomment at gmail]Two mothers = just as good... Right, Amester?
Intact families are what seem to matter, Crid. You've decided to discount my opinion, based in data, on gay and lesbian parents, while accepting my opinion, based in data, on children of single parents.
Read Judith Rich Harris' The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do
"The separateness of the nuclear family ... is a modern invention, only a few hundred years old. ...The monogamous bond between one man and one woman is also something of a novelty."
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2010 6:37 AM
Crid: Two mothers = just as good... Right, Amester?
Oh, gee...who didn't see that coming? Here comes Crid, predictable as smog, and with a monomania that would frighten the most seasoned psychologist.
Prove.
They.
Are.
Not.
Patrick at November 1, 2010 6:41 AM
Nope, turtledove, I'm Mr. Status Quo. You're the ones arguing for a variance.
But you guys can just never find the words to make your case in a single, affirmative sentence...
Which I think is fascinating.
Anyway, silence is assent, so apparently agrees with you. The word "fatherlessness" in the title of this blog most is irrelevant to her.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 6:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/01/radical_fatherl.html#comment-1774931">comment from Crid [cridcomment at gmail]Nope, turtledove, I'm Mr. Status Quo. You're the ones arguing for a variance.
Wrong. You're Mr. Status Quo as of 20 minutes ago, in terms of human history. See Hrdy link I'll post below.
In many societies, children are raised in group situations, not the nuclear family. What seems to matter is that a child has a loving, intact family: parents rather than a parent. Studies of gay parents have their children coming out well-adjusted on the other end. I know, I know...you only accept studies that prove what you want to see as true.
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2010 6:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/01/radical_fatherl.html#comment-1774932">comment from Amy AlkonAnthropologist Sarah Hrdy on single mothers:
http://www.news.com.au/national/single-mothers-defy-evolution-says-professor-sarah-blaffer-hrdy/story-e6frfkvr-1225778053499
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2010 6:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/01/radical_fatherl.html#comment-1774933">comment from Amy AlkonMore Hrdy:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dsiksDFQPDsC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=single+motherhood+hrdy&source=bl&ots=8-Kx9WA9VD&sig=DkWJvU_Wieh24rgRXZJJV2zHxjo&hl=en&ei=oMbOTMGfJo66sQPLkIyHDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2010 6:56 AM
If you don't mean "fathers", you shouldn't say "fathers".
It's an integrity thing, Amy. Funny how this didn't occur to you....
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 7:00 AM
Crid, if Miss Alkon had made the space to mention gay parents, lesbian parents, transgendered parents, and parental units where one likes the Cowboys and the other likes the Redskins (this is unnatural beyond imagining), would it have had any impact on the meaning of her post?
By and large, the issue is fathers and fatherlessness. While Miss Alkon's views on two mommies, etc. are well known, they aren't particularly pertinent here. Now why did you bring them up again?
Old RPM Daddy at November 1, 2010 7:31 AM
Maybe Crid for all his foibles has a point. If the problem is single parents then it's single parents.
The article you picked out on single motherhood isn't really on your side of the issue. When Hrdy refers to single mother she means tribe-less, not sans father. These are not the same. It focuses "shared care". As long as the child has consistent positive male role models the presence of a biological father is indicative of jack shit.
vlad at November 1, 2010 7:34 AM
I see nothing in the article in the Australian but Ms. Hrdy's assertion that humans evolved to need shared parenting, and that there were no single mothers ten million years ago. No proof to either assertion is offered. She seems comfortable with unproven assertions, another one being that children who are picked up when they cry will cry less later in life. Really? Has she done double-blind studies to prove this? I doubt it. This is not research; it is opinion.
kishke at November 1, 2010 7:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/01/radical_fatherl.html#comment-1774952">comment from kishkeI love people who knock anthropologists and other researchers whose work they know little about. I am on deadline now and can't really participate here much, but in Sarah Hrdy's excellent book "Mother Nature," the footnotes/references to studies go from page 543 to page 690. To say her work is based on opinion is pissy, childish, uninformed ranting.
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2010 7:46 AM
Crid: Nope, turtledove, I'm Mr. Status Quo. You're the ones arguing for a variance.
A variance that has been proven to be just as effective. You're the one who can't seem to come up with any supported counter.
Apoplexy is not evidence. You may have your hissy-fits (entertaining once, but the joke has gotten old) and your stentorian demands that we phrase it in exactly your terms (hold your breath), but at the end of the day, you have still not proven your contention.
Amy has forwarded her evidence; you have none. And your histrionics will not eclipse that awkward, bothersome (to you) fact.
As for Amy's mention of fathers in the title, that reveals nothing except that she assumes appropriately that the male half of the baby-making mambo was actually going to assume the responsibility, which might have been something for the self-dubbed Mr. Status Quo to comment on.
Protector of the Status Quo, your cred is shit.
Patrick at November 1, 2010 7:55 AM
Actually the lack of single parents for single and dual offspring species (as in not litters) is a fairly well know observable event. In this case she's dead on. As far as being picked up whenever they cry that has as much supporting as detracting research. That notion is far from decided in most circles.
Humans have two well established characteristics that point to a community evolutionary history, small number of offspring and long maturation times. Human infants are completely helpless for the first 3 years. So a single mother would have to leave unattended infant to forage over the winter. Something as simple as moving the wrong way would expose the infant to cold and kill it. Taking them with you during the hunt is equally likely to kill them.
vlad at November 1, 2010 8:00 AM
@Patrick: "Apoplexy is not evidence."
Hey man, I dig that line. Can I use it?
Old RPM Daddy at November 1, 2010 8:08 AM
Old RPM: Hey man, I dig that line. Can I use it?
Absolutely.
Old RPM: Now why did you bring them up again?
Crid's just trolling for attention. And attention. And attention. And attention. And attention...
Patrick at November 1, 2010 8:14 AM
@Patrick: "Apoplexy is not evidence."
I like that one too.
vlad at November 1, 2010 8:20 AM
So this is one of those Very Special Cases where it's OK that you don't say what you mean, right? Because your intentions are so good.
Amy's saying the precise opposite of what she means... But, golly, science is behind her on this! There's a published study, and everything!
So it's OK to lie and be evasive. Right?
Good to know.
Kind of like when Obama promised me a tax cut.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 8:33 AM
If she has proof to her assertions, I am perfectly ready to hear them. The article you cited, however, quoted no proofs, only opinions.
kishke at November 1, 2010 8:33 AM
Just spitballing a random thought here: I never wanted to be a father, but circumstances happened that I became one. It's been the best thing in my life, ever.
The struggle has been dealing with the woman. I see through media colored lenses a stereotype of young women (though this stereotype cuts across all pooor, uneducated races), the types that are unmotivated and mother illegitimate children, and as a group they seem to be raised with a distorted reality of pure narcissism. They can be 400 pounds and call themselves "big and beautiful". Being raised with this atttude in a young man is toxic.
Eric at November 1, 2010 8:46 AM
But Eric! There are studies!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 9:01 AM
> While Miss Alkon's views on two mommies, etc.
> are well known, they aren't particularly
> pertinent here.
They're precisely pertinent... They couldn't em more directly on point. She doesn't really mean what she's saying this blog post. In fact, she believes something entirely different. It's something simple, but something she's never found the courage to put in a single sentence.
She doesn't care about fathers, and she doesn't care about mothers. And if you ask me, she doesn't seem to care about the kids.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 9:04 AM
Sorry, that should say BE more directly on point. Typo city. I feel bad about it.
Listen, you guys have this belief that you're unwilling to assert. It's the (lack of) love that dare not speak its name.... Ironic, no?
Yes!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 10:02 AM
And, I hate to say it, but certain people are right when they say that an awful lot of fatherlessness has to do not with a lack of love or responsibility on the part of the fathers, but rather bad behavior on the part of the mothers. Especially those mothers who simply can't be pleased with anyone.
But what mainstream politician is going to say that?
lenona at November 1, 2010 10:10 AM
"And indeed, today it is black culture - not racism or a dearth of economic opportunities - that poses the biggest threat to black family structures, and thus to black progress"
Exactly. And that neatly encapsulates why all this anguish over black fatherlessness is putting the cart before the horse. Like it or not, fatherlessness is now an integral part of black culture. And it's a natural consequence of the unspeakably toxic attitude that studying hard in school, speaking proper English, getting married, and working at an honest job to support your family is "acting white", and that blacks who do these things are sellouts, oreos, Uncle Toms, etc. Any child who grows up believing this poison is absolutely destined to be a failure in life.
Fatherhood is responsibility. Fatherlessness is a symptom. The belief that acting responsibly is "acting white" is the disease. And a metastasizing welfare state is the disease-spreading agent.
Martin at November 1, 2010 10:12 AM
"She doesn't care about fathers, and she doesn't care about mothers. And if you ask me, she doesn't seem to care about the kids." Huh? Where the fuck is this coming from? She cares that the child is brought up in an as ideal environment as possible. From every angle (except the fundy bigot shit muncher one) the ideal situation is a two parent home with parents that love the kids and are at worst ambivalent towards each other. The fact that these parents are gay or straight has no effect.
"But Eric! There are studies!" Yes there are studies that show an upper middle class life is better than being poor and in the ghetto. The best way to avoid it is with a two parent home, preferably with educated parents. How the fuck this supports you bias against gay and kids I'm lost on. If you are sighting extremes then you'll lose as the media has a hard-on for right wing parents behaving badly. So It's easier for me to find examples of up standing two hetero parent homes doing all sorts of nasty shit.
"the types that are unmotivated and mother illegitimate children, and as a group they seem to be raised with a distorted reality of pure narcissism." This goes for both genders, choose wisely who you bed. Unfortunately there is no sure fire way to tell if he or she is a fucking nut, usually some sign though
vlad at November 1, 2010 10:23 AM
"but rather bad behavior on the part of the mothers. Especially those mothers who simply can't be pleased with anyone." The best way to fix this is men not porking the narcissistic harridan. I had a buddy of mine get into this. On one hand I felt bad on the other why the fuck was he dating her.
vlad at November 1, 2010 10:31 AM
Years ago (oh, so many years ago) I saw a report on how the governor of Wisconsin (I think it was Wisconsin, could be misremembering that)was trying to promote marriage in his state by basically bribing the parents to marry.
Regardless of whatever problems might have come of his plan, my only real good memory of the report was where a speaker talked with several young mothers and got this general response: "No way would I marry that dog!"
It was okay to have their kids and propagate the genes of said "dog", but marriage was out of the question. So much for that idea.
Pricklypear at November 1, 2010 10:37 AM
The thing is, what went on pre 12,000 years ago in clan societies just doesn't mean much now, does it? Our society isn't like that, and how many people don't live in the same town as their extended family? On the other hand...
IFF it is so important to raise children in a shared environment, than you would think that inner city black areas would be paragons of virtue. Because they are often multigenrational, and there are many siblings, aunts, cousins and such. That shared upbringing doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem is that men simply aren't part of the equation. Once they get old enough to run wild, they are allowed to.
This has nothing to do with Crid's argument, because in the inner city, having 2 mommies is pretty rare. That would be a side issue.
So Patrick, you say PROVEN... so I'm betting you have links to that, yes? 'Cuz I'd like to read them, esp. so that I can get a better understanding of your POV on this subject. But I also want you to give me an idea of SIZE. How many same gender families with children ARE there? That would help a lot to show a meaning.
SwissArmyD at November 1, 2010 10:43 AM
"Radical Fatherlessness"???
It's not "Fatherlessness" that is the problem. It is the lack of community needed to help raise kids in lieu of a missing or shitty mother/father. "Shared care is natural," Professor Hrdy said... "In hunting and gathering and traditional societies, infants are cared for mostly by older siblings, aunts, grandmothers, fathers and male cousins."
So - a single mom all by herself is at risk. A "single mom" with a community of people to aid in the raising of the child is best. It doesn't JUST have to be a father. It can be a whole network of people lending a hand. If parents were more willing to have outside help and outsiders were more willing to give then all children would be better off.
me at November 1, 2010 11:13 AM
> Where the fuck is this coming from?
It comes from the part where she supports gay marriage AT ALL COSTS and through PUSSYFOOTING LANGUAGE. GM is her highest value, period: Rather than say so in a sentence, she scurries off behind these pathetic, purpose-composed "studies".
It's ludicrous.
And it's cowardly.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 11:14 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm
Patrick at November 1, 2010 11:21 AM
>>It comes from the part where she supports gay marriage AT ALL COSTS...
Not so, Crid.
Yes, some of us calmly support gay marriage.
Then we take a precautionary step backwards as you start shouting made-up shit ABOUT THE DIRE COSTS THAT GAY MARRIAGE WILL INFLICT ON SOCIETY!!!!!
Jody Tresidder at November 1, 2010 11:32 AM
Gay marriage I can take or leave... (Leave, and thanks for asking.)
Willfully depriving a child of a loving mother and/or a loving father is murderous stuff.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 11:40 AM
BTW, Jody, your wording is what we of the Nixon generations call a "non-denial denial". You say she doesn't support GM at all costs, but decline to describe anything she holds dearer.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 11:46 AM
>>You say she doesn't support GM at all costs, but decline to describe anything she holds dearer.
Crid,
What?
Why should I bother to go there?
You've admitted you don't even believe Amy means what she says on this topic anyway!
As you wrote earlier in this thread: "She doesn't really mean what she's saying [in] this blog post".
Jody Tresidder at November 1, 2010 12:08 PM
This thread makes me think of the other one about masculinity. It seems both boys and girls in too many black communities aren't learning what masculinity means from real people, so they are making it up as it goes along or incorporating what they've learned from movies and rap songs. It ends up being some twisted parody of masculinity.
MonicaP at November 1, 2010 12:31 PM
You know what I liked about USENET?
Killfiles.
Steve Daniels at November 1, 2010 1:05 PM
> Why should I bother to go there?
Because you said you disagree. I thought you might wanna say why, since you took the time to respond and all.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 1:14 PM
"You say she doesn't support GM at all costs, but decline to describe anything she holds dearer." Two parent homes, education and not milking the system. Those come up much more than gay marriage. Personal responsibility in any form takes presidents over all other concepts. It's prevalent through all her works.
vlad at November 1, 2010 1:23 PM
Since fathers aren't necessary and are hard to attach to children anyway, maybe we should look at groupings of mothers. Mothers have a vested interest in children, and if we could get two or three mothers to pool their efforts, the effect should be the same or even better than having a father. The government could work on sponsering these groups.
I keep thinking of the elephants with herds of moms and kids. Solitary males visit once every few years. It seems to work for them.
thule222 at November 1, 2010 1:48 PM
> Personal responsibility in any form takes
> presidents over all other concepts.
1. Precedence.
2. You're wrong. Sexual identity is a component of personal responsibility. I think any man who decides to have a kid is being irresponsible if he doesn't select a loving mother.
3. Why then is she prattling on about "fatherhood" in this blog post?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 1:53 PM
The idea that single motherhood is sacrosanct isn't something that arose from race politics. It comes from Feminism.
In many ways, the children of poor women are suffering to preserve the prerogatives of affluent women.
zoomba at November 1, 2010 1:57 PM
Reductionist; simplistic; nearly jingoist; and kinda true.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 2:02 PM
Besides—
> as you start shouting made-up shit
> ABOUT THE DIRE COSTS
Unbunch your frill-less shorts, Brit-breath. What shouting did I ever do, 'cept a blog comment? What DIRE (caps!) costs have I shouted about, beyond teh need of a child for a loving mother with a loving father.
See, that's the thing, people always try to have the argument they want to have rather than the one that's one the table.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 2:07 PM
1. Yes correct
2. I'm wrong how? She puts forward personal responsibility in pretty much every post. Any gay male would be specifically selecting a mother for the child since they would not normally be sleeping with women. Gay sex by definition does not lend itself accidents of that type. A broken condom will not inseminate a guy. They are far more responsible than some guy plowing a man hating nasty bitch, or women getting plowed by a hateful violent dickhead.
3. Because single mothers are the vast majority of single parent homes. And therefore a missing father would be the main issue. Though on this I can concede your point to an extent.
vlad at November 1, 2010 2:07 PM
"In many ways, the children of poor women are suffering to preserve the prerogatives of affluent women."
No, welfare makes being a single mother more profitable. If you reward an act with money you will get more of it. A married low income women gets far less per child that a single unemployed broodmare. Same for public housing, single mother get to the front of the line. Also single motherhood among the affluent is frowned upon just not publicly. Just like the rest of the affairs of the affluent are not normally aired on your average street corner. Where as certain classes feel the need to beat you over the head with their personal issues.
vlad at November 1, 2010 2:16 PM
> No, welfare makes being a single
> mother more profitable
There's more to suffering than poverty, especially if you're the kid of such "profiteering" a mother.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 2:19 PM
>>See, that's the thing, people always try to have the argument they want to have rather than the one that's one the table.
That's rich, Crid.
From someone who is so cavalier with other people's words!
As you wrote in this thread of Amy:
"She doesn't really mean what she's saying this blog post. In fact, she believes something entirely different."
Jody Tresidder at November 1, 2010 2:31 PM
"See, that's the thing, people always try to have the argument they want to have rather than the one that's one the table." Wow you've reached a level of hypocrisy only seen in politics. Crid you running for office this time? You bring up gay marriage no matter where the discussion is going.
vlad at November 1, 2010 2:40 PM
Your critiques have had, as of a late, an airy, devil-may-care lack of specificity. You keep waiting for others the make this leap, as if you'd hate to have to put into words to lead the way.
Kinda like how some people don't want to akshlee hafta say that children don't need Mommies or Daddies.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 2:43 PM
Crid: See, that's the thing, people always try to have the argument they want to have rather than the one that's one the table.
I see Crid still has the virulent case of projectile diarrhea. Such an ironic comment coming from someone who pompously blusters his demand that all much couch their arguments in his chosen terminology, but doesn't seem to want to play that game when it's used on him. I noticed he's not anxious to say that a child is doomed to fail without a loving mother and/or father.
Boooooooooring.
Let's talk the topic at hand. Single parenthood is a misfortune, particularly when the parent lacks the means to support the child. Not that I'm ready to congratulate Madonna for her single motherhood. Merely makes it worse when the parent is struggling.
Kids do best when more conscientious adults are involved.
Patrick at November 1, 2010 2:49 PM
Thanks for the link Patrick. Did you read the actual study it referenced? What do you think of this quote:
"Because access to legal same-sex marriage is so new and rare, we do not yet have research that compares the children of married same-sex and different-sex couples."
the interesting thing is that while they criticize misinterpretations of research, and reinforcement of biases already known they go right onto say after the last quote:
"Even so, scholars have achieved a rare degree of consensus that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents"
so... where is that consensus coming from? Is it the hair splitting semantics that somehow the actual marriage itself is what changes things and not the commitment of the couple? I'll keep reading becasue it is long and cites TONS of other articles...
I think everyone should read it all, esp. Cridster because it cites a huge body of work, so if nothing else there is a large aggregation of info to be looked at. The Original study that Patrick referenced is available here:
How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? from the Journal of Marriage and Family.
As a separate issue "Me" says: "A "single mom" with a community of people to aid in the raising of the child is best."
My question was posted immediately before that... how do you NOT get that in inner city housing where there are many genrations, large extended families and friends living in close proximity? That IS A COMMUNITY of related and co-responsible people.
and yet. It isn't working for them. Why? If you look at equally impovrished Hmong immigrants in similar situations, it DOES work for them. Again WHY?
Does it have to do with men being around in the second situation but not the first?
SwissArmyD at November 1, 2010 3:22 PM
Crid, I'm not the sharpest Ginsu in the infomercial, but for someone who thinks people's comments should be clear, you strike me as the Overlord of Obfuscation, the Maharaja of Mystification. Therefore, in reference to this blog item, could you:
a. State plainly what it is Miss Alkon wrote that she's being dishonest about, and
b. State plainly what it is you actually believe?
Thank you.
Old RPM Daddy at November 1, 2010 3:32 PM
She complains about fatherless (motherless) children when in fact, she's cool with it.
What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 4:01 PM
"...parental units where one likes the Cowboys and the other likes the Redskins..."
I'm appalled that I have to read such filth.
Meanwhile, Cridster, Amy's every tenth post is about how men get blamed for everything. Looks to me like you're just mad because she didn't use the terms you want this time. What happened, look at Twin Peaks and yearn for some camera time with Audrey? YouTube banned your video? What?
Radwaste at November 1, 2010 4:07 PM
> Amy's every tenth post is about how men
> get blamed for everything.
And her every eleventh shows her to be fully submerged in the sexual naiveté of her age... Washout.
I don't remember Audrey from Twin Peeks, but I remember Audrey from the Two Windmills.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 5:21 PM
By the way, the establishment upon which the mountainside cafe in that television show was based burned down last year. Those of us who enjoyed breaking in our new supercharged automobiles with a dash along the Tehachapis and scamper across the Antelope Valley were devastated.... It was a great place to pick up a cup of mud before dropping back down into the LA basin. It's absence will be felt for many years.
(The blog comment could have been SO much better, if only more than two links were allowed.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 5:34 PM
Crid: I don't remember Audrey from Twin Peeks, but I remember Audrey from the Two Windmills.
How about Audrey II from Little Shop of Horrors?
Patrick at November 1, 2010 5:36 PM
Seriously, is there a more "radical" idea at work in the human mind than that Mommies and Daddies don't matter? It's beyond nihil.
(More pix)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 5:38 PM
Crid, I don't think there are ever going to be enough same-sex couples raising children to be a significant social factor one way or another. Meanwhile, single parenting is approaching 100% in some segments of our society. Focus, man, focus.
(I'll have to admit the data on same-sex parenting confuses me; I'd always assumed that it was necessary to have role models of both sexes. But I think it's always going to be a pretty sparse phenomenon, so I'll just suspend judgment and go on to bigger things.)
Meanwhile, how do we solve the big problem? Is a solution even possible? Are our inner cities all going to turn into Gazas? Are we going to have to put up Patriot batteries around them?
Cousin Dave at November 1, 2010 6:17 PM
If you want to start eliminating fatherlessness its really very simple.
1. DNA confirmation at birth as a matter of routine.
2. Make divorce HARD to get for couples with children. Bring back the laws that mandated that cause be shown.
3. Eliminate default mother custody, thus reducing the incentive for women to divorce their husbands.
4. Stigmatize single motherhood in art, music, media. Its not a good thing in the best of circumstances, and should not be hailed or glorified.
5. Eliminate alimony and palimony for the party that initiates a divorce. You only get it if the other person wants to end the relationship, and then you get it for no longer than half the time the relationship lasted, less the cost of hiring replacements from housekeeping to cook to hookers, for that same span of time.
6. Mandate physical evidence of physical or sexual abuse, and jail violators of visitation orders, as well as false accusors.
---------------
Crid does have a point, kind of hate to admit it, but he does. The word "fathers" is about as male specific as you can get. It does leave out the plethora of other family units. But I have to say he's still missing the forest for the trees here. We can argue day and night about the virtues of the two parent lesbian porn star parents and their transgendered neighbor couple with two adopted kids...but either way those are representative of a microscopic number in the total population, between 1 & 3% if I remember properly. THAT can be addressed later.
For now, lets worry about the issue with the supermajority of, the straight women who get knocked up by guys, dump them because they're bored, (or see them go to jail on drug charges) and act like martyrs deserving of public assistance because they can't make good decisions, can't teach boys to be men, but apparently do very well about voting people into office who will vote to give them more money out of my f'king tax dollars.
One problem at a time Crid, one problem at a time.
----------------------
And by the way, "me" while shared care might be natural, that was in a time when life was nasty, brutish, and short. The aunts, uncles, etc. were all constantly around, nobody went off on their own, and there was nowhere worth going, and if there were, going there alone would have been suicide. The way of life for hunter gatherers was the only one possible to ensure group survival, that does not mean it is natural or even desirable in other social and environmental circumstances. After all, look how quickly it fell apart when better lives became possible and group sizes increased.
---------------
I'll agree with Crid on this point:
"Willfully depriving a child of a loving mother and/or a loving father is murderous stuff."
But worrying about a tiny percentage of an already tiny percentage, when a larger problem is growing with the vast majority, is like worrying about the stone in your shoe while a barbarian is running at you with a 20 lbs ax. Worry about the little shit later.
Robert at November 1, 2010 6:52 PM
> Focus, man, focus
The "significant social factor" may not be the best metric here. We're talking about the hearts of children... Focus thy-self!
> single parenting is approaching 100%
> in some segments
Yeah. Hate that. Do you think Amy's reflexive, unspoken assumption that a father's love* is a fungible, negotiable blessing might be part of that?
____________________
* Or a mother's... It's pain to have to keep saying it both ways... But my heart breaks for the little girls out there who don't have mothers to look at as they grow up because Amy & company don't think they're necessary.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 6:56 PM
"When I talked last at the inner-city school, I told the kids that getting pregnant or getting a girl pregnant before you're established as a person, and in your career, and married is damaging to any children you might have (they are forced to grow up in poverty, etc.). The teacher gave me a gentle talking-to afterward, and said they were all kids from single mother homes (I'd guessed that) so it was better not to say that. Well, I think somebody has to. That talk is way, way, way overdue." A. A.
I understand and agree with what you're saying but I also remember that at that age I thought I was irreparably behind and screwed. No need to put a nail in that coffin.
I recommend an approach that does not *pointedly* suggest to kids that they or their lives are lesser than they could have been had their circumstances been different.
When one of my male relatives was about 10 years old, I took him aside and explained the costs of getting a girl pregnant: child support payments every month, 12 months a year, for 18 years; the pain of knowing that you can barely support yourself because those payments are so high; the heartbreaking pain of knowing that no matter how much you pay, your child is still living in poverty, because it's nearly impossible to support a child outside of marriage; spending the rest of your life related to a woman you just wanted to have sex with; spending the rest of your life and someone else's life related to a person that you had never met, until about 9 months after you got laid; being responsible to that person for having created their existence while so ill prepared to care for them. I left it at that. Then I showed him how to use *every* form of OTC birth control I could get my hands on. After the fill-the-condom-with-water demo, he ran out of the room.
If I was having the conversation with a girl, I would add that it's important to get pregnant by someone to whom they want their children to be related, identify with, and turn out to be like.
The teen years are the time to think about who one wants to be in the world, what one wants to create in life, and what it takes to provide that. If this includes being a parent, what do they want to give to/ provide for their child? If it's security, love, and the other advantages that come with time and attention, then one of the best actions they can take to assure this is to get pregnant only *after* getting married.
Last but not least, kids learn and do what they see - it is of primary importance to have a kid only when one can model the behavior and lifestyle that they want to give to their kid. So if a teenager looks around and finds them self surrounded by people behaving in a way they do not want their child to behave - that is not the place in which to raise a kid. And if the teen cannot yet command the kind of respect and home environment they want their child to mimic - that is not the time in life to have a kid.
I know that teenagers reflect on these things - I've seen comments to the effect written as letters by teenage girls to their "children" before having an abortion. I think few teenagers stop to reflect before they're in such a heart breakingly difficult position. It would be a gift to be prompted to consider these things proactively.
Michelle at November 1, 2010 6:57 PM
Robert: Crid does have a point, kind of hate to admit it, but he does.
Then.
Where.
Is.
The.
Evidence?
What studies that have been done seem to indicate that the children of gay parents do just as well.
Criticize the studies all you care to. Blah, blah, blah, blah...they don't have a large enough sample...whine, whine, whine.
It's.
Still.
More.
Evidence.
Than.
Crid.
Has.
Produced.
The eruption of Mount Self-Righteous is not evidence. Vehemence is not proof.
How.
Long.
Will.
It.
Take.
Before.
You.
Understand.
This?
"But, but, but, we just know! You know I'm right!"
I don't know any such thing. I don't believe it. I don't see why children who don't have loving mommy and daddy are doomed to be less than their co-ed parented counterparts, no matter how slight their deficiency may be. They are just as good. Not much worse off, worse off, or even slightly worse off.
Understand? I do not accept this is true. You have made the assertion that it is. The onus is on you to prove this.
Patrick at November 1, 2010 7:44 PM
Are our inner cities all going to turn into Gazas?
You are aware that our urban areas have much lower crime rates on average than they did 30 years ago, right?
Christopher at November 1, 2010 8:00 PM
There's no "onus" on me whatsoever... None.
You don't think kids need Moms. You don't think kids need Dads.
Good luck out there.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 1, 2010 8:01 PM
I'd like to take a closer look at this line:
"today it is culture--not racism or a dearth of economic opportunities--that poses the biggest threat to black family structures, and thus to black progress."
Mr. Currie is making the tacit assumption that violence and irresponsibility are inherent to Black culture. How is this not racist? What these excerpts fail to address is the historical context of persistent marginalization and the imposition of Western patriarchal values upon a displaced people. These fatherless children are a reflection of the devaluation of black women and the glorification of a certain ideal of the Black man. Can anyone say that these values are not also shared by White Americans?
Making these kinds of arguments while ignoring the historical context is a reflection of one's own assumption of a power dynamic which privileges White Americans. It erases their complicity in a situation which has become problematic to them.
Annie at November 1, 2010 10:05 PM
Crid: There's no "onus" on me whatsoever... None.
Incorrect. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Always.
Patrick at November 2, 2010 2:16 AM
You can be all crisply imperious and grade-school snippy if you want, but you're the one insisting on a social change— That's Discourse 101. I think most every woman (and man, for that matter) on the planet can do the math once they understand that you think their intimate contribution to child-rearing is superfluous. These are your wonderful new insights about human connectedness? Great. So sell it... Or don't.
> What these excerpts fail to address is the
> historical context of persistent marginalization
> and the imposition of Western patriarchal values
> upon a displaced people.
Man, that stuff's getting really, really stale. It's wordy and it's bloodless and not especially true. (And I didn't think anyone outside of the editorial offices of Jet Magazine was still capitalizing "white".) "One's own assumption of a power dynamic" just doesn't mean as much as you think it does. This is just a spectacularly distasteful context in which to prattle about "the imposition of Western patriarchal values".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 2, 2010 5:17 AM
And you can dodge your responsibility all you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one insisting that a loving mommy and a loving daddy must, for reasons you cannot support, be better than two mommies or two daddies.
What research that has been done does not bear this out.
Patrick at November 2, 2010 11:14 AM
but at the end of the day, you're the one insisting that a loving mommy and a loving daddy must, for reasons you cannot support, be better than two mommies or two daddies
Not quite Patrick - he is asserting that ANY mom and dad(even the kind that cook meth in the nursery) are better that loving gay parents.
And given his stance on gay parenthood and adoption one can infer that he feels warehousing children in orphanges where they will never get adopted by striaght parents is better that gay parenthood as well
lujlp at November 2, 2010 11:24 AM
So spelling has been a problem for you.
> he is asserting that ANY mom and dad(even
> the kind that cook meth in the nursery)
> are better that loving gay parents.
Are truly that incapable of reading as well? Or are you just so bored on election day that you need to make shit up?
Lou, this is like that time you said the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles should all have their throats slashed in their sleep, with their daughters being violently raped. Some of us thought that was interemperate.
Crid at November 2, 2010 11:43 AM
The whole thing between Patrick and Crd and proof... OI, this social science stuff is hard to prove, as opposed to other scientific persuits. There is a LOT of opinion on those social scientists, and their deconstructions of things are really heavy reading but I finally found a partial online listing of the promary proof that Patrick seems to be using. See if this is right Patrick:
Deconstructing the Essential Father from 1999
But the rhetoric they spout throughout their proof! "Neoconservative social scientists have claimed that fathers are essential to positive child development...The authors propose that the neoconservative position is an incorrect or oversimplified interpretation of empirical research."
Eh? So the whole point of this article is to disprove what supposed neoconservative social scientists have said?
Um, correct me if I'm wrong sandy, but doesn't the conflation of a political philosophy and the aim of the sciences denote an immediate bias? I couldn't find a lot of their research notes because the article is so old, but I don't see awhere they are getting the HUMAN research from. They're talkng a lot about primate analogues and what kind of fathering is done... but it's not like a Silverback Gorilla teaches his sons how to use aqua-velva... But basically their upshot is that neither mother nor father is specifically needed to parent, and anyone who says so is an essentialist, or a neo-con and wrong...
So, I think we are so far down the road of conflicting studies, that it would be handy to me if you could point out the study you were reading Patrick, that specifically states your case, 'cuz I musta missed it.
SwissArmyD at November 2, 2010 1:15 PM
"I said kill all the GOPHERS, not golfers!"
Crid at November 2, 2010 1:44 PM
SwissArmyD, Amy did a blog post for such a study not to long ago.
Crid - was I refering to Jesus' 12 or the LDS churches 12? Got a link so I could see it again?
Also every time anyone asks whats wrong with gay parents you make the claim that it is, almost too horrible for words to describe, wrong to EVER deny any child either a mother or a father.
And then you demand your debate opponets CONFESS that what they really mean is that it is ok to deny them a parent of either sex.
Your almost manic obsseion over the sex of the parents no matter the situation leads me to believe you would indeed prefer meth cooking junkie heteros to a stable gay familly with good jobs and a shitload of spare cash.
If I am wrong, prove it. Just copy and paste the following phrase.
I think and agree that two stable loving parents of the same sex can be better parents to a child then a pair of heterosexual methheads who cook drugs under their babies crib. And that their kids might turn out just fine.
But I'd be willing to bet you wont say that, becuase even if you did believe it, which I think you dont(based on the fact that when I have isued simmilar challenges in the past you've ignored them) you hate being back down.
But like I said, feel free to prove me wrong.
lujlp at November 2, 2010 1:57 PM
If we're going to tell people they can't do something, then we'd better have a good reason why, not just a vague sense of wrongness.
MonicaP at November 2, 2010 2:10 PM
MonicaP: If we're going to tell people they can't do something, then we'd better have a good reason why, not just a vague sense of wrongness.
Oh, but Crid knows, Monica! He just knows! He knows for a fact that a kid raised by two mommies or two daddies with involved caring adults will never ever ever in 20 megagazillion years be as good as a child raised by a loving mommy and a loving daddy.
He doesn't need proof of this! He knows, knows, knows!
Patrick at November 2, 2010 4:42 PM
"You are aware that our urban areas have much lower crime rates on average than they did 30 years ago, right?"
That's a bit like saying, "Our house is only under 15 feet of water now, instead of 30 feet." Compared to 1990, crime is down all across the country. In a cursory look around the Web, I don't see that crime in the inner cities has declined any more than it has in the outlying areas.
Cousin Dave at November 2, 2010 6:12 PM
Lujlp,
I agree with you on a great many things. You are referring to the piece that amy did HERE.
There are some problems with that study.
The children from the Lesbian families were:
1.) Chosen from cities with a very high proportion of college graduates.
2.) Chosen from a population pool which visits book stores. (Parents who regularly visit book stores tend to be more highly educated then those that do not)
3.) Chosen from a population that has purposely set out to have a child.
4.) Chosen from a population that has eugenically chosen the sperm from a catalog, where the sperm donor characteristics are defined like a shopping list – IQ, education, medical conditions, mental health conditions, athleticism, employment, etc.
5.) Chosen from a population that is willing to pay for expensive IVF treatment, thereby indicating lesbian parents who are well above poverty level and quite likely in the upper middle class or upper class of the socioeconomic ladder.
And the control group chosen is ALL CHILDREN IN SOCIETY.
This study design passed peer review? It would fail to pass muster in a methodology of science class.
The above comes from blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/08/lesbian-parents-their-well-adjusted-kids-what-the-study-really-means/
notice I didn't include the http://www :)
Steve at November 2, 2010 8:31 PM
thanks Steve, there's no WWW...
From Discover Magazine blog
I remember it now, but the discover piece really gave me the numbers I was looking for... They say Census figures are 270,000 kids in same-sex households, and maybe double that in single parent gay households... though that is mixing the definitions that they are using. Elsewhere, gay refers to 2 men, and lesbian to 2 women, and I'm going to assume that they are just not using the right term. Anyhow, it's that figure that I've been wondering about... though I don't know how many households that actually is, just the number of kids...
the lesbian parents study was only about 78 families. I have no reason to believe that the reported values are going to vary much though, based on the 5 characteristics they were chosen with... those children start out with the best of everything. Now that those kids are young adults, I'll be curious to see how they deal with starting their own families. Hopefully at some point a similar study will be done of gay families as well.
It's a small number as opposed to population, though, since there are 73million children in the US.
SwissArmyD at November 2, 2010 10:11 PM
Studies. Studies studies studies... As if no human being had ever thought about how to approach these matters without some paper from a biology lab at Ohio State, executed mostly by inattentive undergrads earning minimum wage. You want to see the studies before you can decide what's best for children. (Same way you had to see the studies before you decided to eat vegetables, or to watch your step when walking along a cliff.)
Hmmm... Why would that be?
> was I refering to Jesus' 12 or the LDS
> churches 12? Got a link so I could see
> it again?
Right, your cynicism has no boundaries, and you think others are interested in it. Well, I've noticed that it's the bitterest folks here who are most eager to believe that children's lives are experimental playthings.
Why would that be?
I think it's mostly a backhanded hope that the conversation will drift into some series of personal anecdotes from their own lives. Early in this talk, we'd be expected to be fascinated with disappointment they've found with their own mothers and fathers (or whomever). In the middle of this conversation, we'd be expected to affirm that by dint of their courage and clear-headedness, they've nonetheless grown into well-rounded personalities. And at the end, we're supposed to agree with reasoning like this: 'Since *I* turned out so well, there's no reason little Johnny (or little LaPrell from the inner city) shouldn't be able to turn out just fine, too.'
After that, it's all about projecting some pain. But where?
Well, black people really won't accept that rage from others so much any more, nor will any immigrant or native cultures. And they gays are all kinda stand-uppy now, too. Even women, a historical favorite for these resentments since the dawn of time, just will not take shit for no reason.
Nope, if we want to terrorize someone in America now, and really fuck with someone who's got no way to speak for their own best interests, there's only one sector left: Children! They're powerless. They're inarticulate, and they'll always be inarticulate.
And so you can blithely sever the dearest, most profound connections they could ever have to their species. You can erase one of the two parties who gave them life... And they'll never even know!
Perfect! Right, Lou?
Because I've noticed that the people raised in the most loving homes don't get too cranked about these arguments... Certainly without the fervor we see from a Patrick or Lou, whose energies aren't likely fueled by random distribution.
And it's those folks, the one raised in (and now hosting) loving homes, to whom you guys are most resistant of presenting your beliefs in plain English.
You think the love of a mother and a father are irrelevant.
But you know better than to say so out loud around the normies.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 12:42 AM
Yammmer, yammer, yammer...Just out of curiosity, Crid, but do you have any way of knowing who was raised in the most loving homes? Or is this circular reasoning on your part. "We can tell who was raised in the most loving homes because they don't get 'too cranked' about these discussions, and I notice that those who were raised in the most loving homes don't get 'too cranked' about these discussions."
It's mildly creepy, if you want to know the truth of it. It smacks of Brian's pathological need to define other people, overruling how these individuals might define themselves.
I would also point out, that since you are the 'most cranked' in these discussions, your own home must have been the least loving out of all of us. That is, if your capricious reasoning were valid.
Or will you pull the Freudian bit of exempting yourself from your own rule? Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar, you know.
Patrick at November 3, 2010 2:25 AM
If eeryone will notice crid never said he thought stable wealthy same sex parents could do abetter job the hetro parents who cook meth in their babies room.
Bravo crid.
Also, I would like that link, people atr so prone to take my rants ut of context
lujlp at November 3, 2010 5:44 AM
>>And it's those folks, the one raised in (and now hosting) loving homes, to whom you guys are most resistant of presenting your beliefs in plain English.
You think the love of a mother and a father are irrelevant.
Bullshit, Crid.
My straight parents weren't always perfect. But they loved me and wanted me - and that's the relevant part.
And parents who love and want their children are the best possible parents. I also see this with the gay parents I know. And I hope my children - if and when they begin their own families -find partners who share their ideals as parents.
Jody Tresidder at November 3, 2010 8:27 AM
> Yammmer, yammer, yammer
Yet somehow it's been getting under your skin for years.
> If eeryone will notice crid never said
> he thought stable wealthy same sex parents
> could do abetter job the hetro parents who
> cook meth in their babies room
See?, now, this is what I was getting at. You're all about the sarcasm and the bitterness, and distracts the hell out of you. "Wealth" is your value for parenthood, not mine. And it's a value that's been the source of nearly unspeakable devastation, essentially holocaust. Loving mothers with loving fathers? Not so much.
> But they loved me and wanted me - and
> that's the relevant part.
[emphasis mine {And by the way, whats the deal with the squinty "parents" thing? Is there a point you were trying to make, something to delicate and poignant to be said explicitly?}]
Says who? What on Earth makes you think so, but that you want so badly for it to be true?
Crid at November 3, 2010 10:57 AM
>>And by the way, whats the deal with the squinty "parents" thing? Is there a point you were trying to make, something to delicate and poignant to be said explicitly?
Crid,
I was doing my best to draw your attention to a word you appear, strangely, to avoid like the proverbial when lecturing us on what's best for children.
You are so hung up on the magical properties of a mother and a father (in order to exclude gay couples) that I worried you might have overlooked this more inclusive synonym for "one who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child"?
Thing is, gays make great parents too!
I say so. Others here agree. And studies so far - though they are limited - indicate this might indeed be the case.
What have you got?
Jody Tresidder at November 3, 2010 12:10 PM
> You are so hung up on the magical properties
> of a mother and a father
Not "hung up on"; clearly observant of. It takes one of each to make the magic happen and nothing else will do. And just to make the point, Mother Nature literally delivers the child to their point of juncture. I'ddinat sumpin'?
> (in order to exclude gay couples)
Nope, not in order to exclude anyone in particular. I have a preference for a loving mother with a loving father over any other assemblage. I've said so in as many words time and time again, but you won't hear it. The fascination with gays is all your own.
> What have you got?
The entirety of human history and the beating hearts of everyone I've ever met. But golly, it'll be great to see what the kids in the lab come up with next week!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 12:22 PM
Seriously, can't wait.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 12:54 PM
Crid: Yet somehow it's been getting under your skin for years.
You wish, Cridsy-widsy. Personally, I cherish the memories of your greatest Patrick-induced meltdowns. Perhaps you'd care to root through your archives and bring up your wailing lament of the time you bawled unceasingly about my supposed habit of disappearing for six months, only to return and complain about how your attitudes supposedly offended me. Your climactic outburst, "Then GROW UP!" was pretty chucklicious. I was rocking in my chair.
It was then that I formed my contention that the narrowest of minds have the thinnest of skins.
My goal is to prod you to an even greater frenzy one day. I haven't been able to top that, so far. But, you know, it does spring eternal and all that...
Patrick at November 3, 2010 12:56 PM
Crid: The entirety of human history and the beating hearts of everyone I've ever met.
So, in other words, you've never met anyone raised by gay parents...yet you're utterly convinced of their inferiority.
Unsurprisingly, they have a word for that. In fact, I can think of several offhand.
Patrick at November 3, 2010 1:00 PM
>>The entirety of human history and the beating hearts of everyone I've ever met.
Yeah. Right.
Cites, please?
Actually, all you've really got is a nasty suspicion that gay parents can't be as wonderful as heterosexual parents, Crid.
Also, if I wanted to argue as poorly as you have here, I could hurl back at you the exact words you lobbed at Amy earlier in this thread:
"She doesn't really mean what she's saying this blog post. In fact, she believes something entirely different. It's something simple, but something she's never found the courage to put in a single sentence."
I could speculate that you don't really care about the kiddies at all.
But that would be silly. Wouldn't it?
Jody Tresidder at November 3, 2010 1:18 PM
> if I wanted to argue as poorly as you have
Yeah yeah, I make no case at all, but every time it comes up you hafta start squealing.
And again, I don't quite see the relevance of your quotation. I meant every word, and it's always gratifying to see my own clear reasoning presented anew.
Amy chat about fatherlessness is bogus, because she thinks fatherhood is irrelevant. She's wearing another woman's gown to cotillion, which I think is just tragically naughty. And your point is _____________?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 2:18 PM
>>And your point is _____________?
Thank goodness for cut 'n paste, Crid!
As I wrote above..."that gays make great parents too! I say so. Others here agree. And studies so far - though they are limited - indicate this might indeed be the case."
And you've only got your nasty suspicions.
Jody Tresidder at November 3, 2010 2:27 PM
> And studies so far - though they are limited -
Infantilism. Jody, you're a coward. The truth of what you believe is logically demonstrable, but you're afraid to say it that way, though you've been asked to dozens of times: Mothers (or Fathers) aren't important.
You believe it but won't say it.
Why?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 2:34 PM
>>You believe it but won't say it.
I won't use the prescribed phrase, Crid, because I most certainly DO believe children need parents who want and love them.
You don't?
Jody Tresidder at November 3, 2010 3:14 PM
Parents, you mean, best consisting of the loving man and woman who gave the child life.
Look, let's just shuck right down to the cob here. You agree with me, Amy agrees with me, and that's the reason you can't say what you want to say in the clearest possible language. This is all a pose for you. Because you don't want to agree.
But you do.
(I knooooow! Nutty, right?)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 3:37 PM
"Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga."
So Crid, it appears that the argument is that evolution has decided that a mother and father are required to make a kid... so that must be the highest form, evolutionarily speaking, of child care requirement?
At the same time, our current family structures have evolved from a clan/tribe based structure where there were blood relations to make that clan strong... but as the clan has gotten smaller and smaller, those blood ties have become less necessary because people can operate independantly within our society and still get along. So what was an evolutionary maximum, ie. clan family units allowing society to move foreward and organize, has become less and less required as civilization has matured. To the point where a nuclear family is the only likely group to still live close together, while once kids are of age they will likely move out and away and start their own families, rather than become part of a multigenerational unit. For other people they will never form a family unit at all, and simply have a loose association of friends their whole lives. In long timeframes, that would be an evolutionary dead-end, but from an individual perspective it's simply a choice.
My question from there is simple. Does evolution and it's male/female outcome, by it's nature, trump any kind of social construct with respect to the raising of children? Or is it a human capacity to raise children that is most important?
SwissArmyD at November 3, 2010 4:16 PM
What? No link to the archive I requested, Crid? Not even going to acknowledge my request? How uncouth.
Crid, why don't you say that children raised by same-sex parents are doomed to be inferior to those children raised by a loving mother and a loving father?
That is what you believe, after all. They're missing something that their co-ed parented counterparts have.
Are you going to insist that a child must having a loving mother and loving father to be whole, self-actualizing people?
Andrew Jackson might dispute that point. As would Alexander Hamilton. Leo Tolstoy? Ella Fitzgerald? Louis Armstrong? Carol Burnette? Barbara Stanwyck? Babe Ruth?
You're so fixated with forcing people into phrasing their half of the discussion into your parameters. But I doubt any thinking person would readily accept your stance on the issue either.
What happens if a child is raised without a loving mother and a loving father? Describe what kind of adults they will, of necessity, become?
Patrick at November 3, 2010 5:44 PM
> Does evolution and it's male/female
> outcome,by it's nature, trump any
> kind of social construct
Back'ards, dude.... "male/female" ain't the "outcome", it's the predicate through which nature says something it wants us to know. There have been zero exceptions... Like, ever.
> our current family structures have evolved
> from a clan/tribe based structure where...
You've been reading Hillary's book again, haven't you? Or hangout with California's Meathead (out of links, but you know who I mean), who likes to take control of people's lives by prattling about "the first three years". It's kind of like how so many people are now far too impressed with Gladwell's "ten thousand hours".
'Cept, y'know, a big part of civilization's miracle (especially) is that once certain standards are met, we stay out of each other's way. Those screeching skateboard brats rolling through my neighborhood every day?...
They're not my kids.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 6:42 PM
er, yeah, maybe that phrase sounded better in my brain... children being the outcome of male/female... so yeah we're on the same page there... but your second paragraph is kinda opaque to me... never read hillary, except I think something by Sir Edmund once, and I dunno from California's meathead... I suupose I could look up Gladwell... anyhow, explain your explanation, neh?
So, Patrick... the triumph of people in adversity is laudable, but that doesn't mean that being thrown into shark infested waters is the best way to learn how to swim. You are talking about people who came out well despite their upbringing, versus kids that turn out well because of their upbringing. A parent tend to want to make things better for the kid. That's why we read so many stupid books that contradict each other...
SwissArmyD at November 3, 2010 8:48 PM
Back'ards, dude.... "male/female" ain't the "outcome", it's the predicate through which nature says something it wants us to know. There have been zero exceptions... Like, ever.
-Crid
So never, in the history of the earth, has there ever been a hermaphadite born in the human species, or a species which evolved a reproductive means other than sexually.
lujlp at November 3, 2010 9:20 PM
Sorry.
Hillary wrote this, and I hate Hillary. (The smarm of that subtitle, a quintessentially boomer sentiment, makes my flesh crawl. Remember that hideous Crosby, Stills and Nash tune?... Same thing. Also, do you remember any CSN tune that wasn't hideous?) It taking a village is the presumption by which Hillary makes all kinds of intrusions into our private lives.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 9:33 PM
I mean, just read that thing:
Golly, Hillary... Thanks for saying so! Thanks for leaving us with a way to participate! That's wonderful.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 9:34 PM
RE: Gladwell, I can't find a good, crisp critique right now, but see this.
Gladwell is loathed by other writers for two reasons. First, and most importantly by far, he's very successful. Secondly, Gladwell's adored by people who don't like to read much. His fans LOVE vacuous factoids like his 10,000 hour rule.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 9:35 PM
The sorry was for Swiss... I hate not having been clear.
Tell you what, Lou....
> So never, in the history of the earth, has
> there ever been a hermaphadite
Your bitterness has to go somewhere, right? So why don't you write up a white paper about how the lives of hermaphrodites are supposed to be handled. This will give you something to do, a way to feel that you're participating. Just get it in the mail before Thanksgiving, and we'll see if we can't put something in motion before the holidays.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 3, 2010 9:38 PM
ah, yeah, yeah, yeah... I remember that, though it wouldn't have ever been on my reading list... gladwell :shrug: sounds like one of those "er, yeah, and?" kinds of books that you kick yourself for not writing and making money from. Reminds me of my brief 3 hour stint selling cars when I was young... "Make sure you tell the customer that this car has dual diagonal braking system." 'every car in the US since 1967 has had that.' "True, but the customer may not know, and you pointed it out to them!" OI!
So, anyhow, Lujlp... how many hermaphrodites procreated? How many did so together? Did they establish a new species? Was it viable genetically? Sure there are other species that change their genetics around for conditions, particularly amphibians... but are there any primates that do so? Even primates aren't so terribly close to us genetically. Here's a factoid, that ASFAIK is true, but feel free to rebut... One troup of chimps has more genetic diversity even though they are all blood relations, than the whole human race does.
SwissArmyD at November 3, 2010 10:15 PM
Crid has got a strong argument. The natural caretakers for a child are his biological parents. They are the ones programmed - whether by nature, evolution or God - with the desire to love the child, to care most for him, to take responsibility for him, to sacrifice for him. [And yes, I know that there are bad actors in this world, and meth cookers, and people who make poor decisions, but I'm talking about what's normal.] Now, it may be that other people can provide equivalent care and love. But we don't know that for sure. Until we do, we need to invoke the physician's credo of "First, do no harm." Which means that without definite, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, we need to assume, for the child's welfare, that the best enviroment for him is one in which he has a loving mother and father.
kishke at November 4, 2010 9:11 AM
kishke: Crid has got a strong argument.
Actually, he has no argument and no one knows it better than he does.
He assumes, sans evidence, that children with gay parents will do worse. As proof of this, he won't state his position in one concise sentence: "Children with a loving mother and a loving father are superior to all other children."
Patrick at November 4, 2010 9:42 AM
>>Now, it may be that other people can provide equivalent care and love. But we don't know that for sure. Until we do, we need to invoke the physician's credo of "First, do no harm." Which means that without definite, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, we need to assume, for the child's welfare, that the best enviroment for him is one in which he has a loving mother and father.
kishke,
That's nothing but a fancy-pants way of telling would-be gay parents to shut up until hell freezes over.
Crid has his nasty suspicions about gay parents. And you are simply demanding we assume he is correct, until the day we have "incontrovertible" evidence to the contrary.
But who decides when the evidence IS "incontrovertible"?
It's been 150 years since Darwin published "On The Origin of Species" and still there is active debate today whether the evidence in support of the theory is, in fact, incontrovertible.
And "First, do no harm" - has never been a foolproof credo - not even for medicine.
Jody Tresidder at November 4, 2010 9:57 AM
> he won't state his position in one concise
> sentence: "Children with a loving mother
> and a loving father are superior to
> all other children."
The way you'll know that's not my position is that I never said anything of the kind. My position, which can't be rephrased to cohere with your wording, is:
What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 10:09 AM
>>My position, which can't be rephrased to cohere with your wording...
Which is, of course, what some of us having been saying to you for an awfully long while, Crid.
Jody Tresidder at November 4, 2010 10:21 AM
> And "First, do no harm" - has never been
> a foolproof credo - not even for medicine.
Don't spazz out, Jody!
Look, it took awhile, but I get it now... You're on the team... Obviously you are, just like Amy is.
But there are optics for you to worry about! You live in a social sphere of shadings and perfidy, a treacherous realm where things aren't always as they seem, and a dear friend could drop a shiv of resentment through your ribs at any moment. There's a REASON that you can't say five simple words like "A mother's love is unnecessary", even though they sum your public position so concisely!
Well, Eurosister, I GET it now. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more.
You agree with me. A loving mother with a loving father is best.
And all children deserve what's best, don't they?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 10:27 AM
> what some of us having been saying
But Jody, that wouldn't make sense. If the love of both a mother and a father are what's best, then how could you be willing to cast the love of one of them aside merely for the fulfillment of adults?...
Unless you were a heartless, bloodless FUCKING MONSTER, I mean?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 10:35 AM
Anyone seen Lou's white paper? Listen, we need a policy move on this, stat. There's a crisis of almost 0.2%!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 10:47 AM
That's nothing but a fancy-pants way of telling would-be gay parents to shut up until hell freezes over.
If safeguarding children means telling gay parents to shut up till hell freezes over, then that's what we should do. I think that in these questions, the welfare of the children should be our highest priority.
And "First, do no harm" - has never been a foolproof credo - not even for medicine.
I'm not sure what you mean, but even if I did I'd answer that nothing's foolproof. We have to do the best we can with what we know.
kishke at November 4, 2010 10:53 AM
Allright, "coward" and "heartless, bloodless FUCKING MONSTER" might have been a little bit over the top.
Might.
Winkwink, Jody! Nudge-nudge!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 11:23 AM
>>But Jody, that wouldn't make sense.
Oh, I see where you misunderstood me, Crid.
I meant that my position - which is, specifically, that parents who love and want their children are the best - "can't be rephrased to cohere with your wording".
Your wording, of course, excludes gay parents from the winners' podium of best parents.
Therefore I don't agree with you.
I hope this is clearer?
(And I love it when you link ancient Monty Python sketches. As a family, we often gather around the fire for reruns of these golden oldies - and just chuckle our heads off!)
Jody Tresidder at November 4, 2010 11:34 AM
> I hope this is clearer?
Nope, wordy, still pussyfooting, still cowardly .
To be clear about your beliefs, you'd need to say this:
"A mother's love is unnecessary."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 11:39 AM
And why wouldn't you?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 11:40 AM
>>To be clear about your beliefs, you'd need to say this:
"A mother's love is unnecessary."
Crid?
outta here.
Jody Tresidder at November 4, 2010 12:04 PM
> outta here.
No! Wait! COME BACK, Jody!
Your insights are important! We need you to share them!... Share them proudly!
We need you to tell all the mothers you know that there's nothing distinctive or essential about the connection they give TO THEIR FLESH AND BLOOD... Or even to their adopteds.
I mean, if you concede this point and then run like Hell, it's like you're ashamed. And if you have to announce that you're running, it's like you're doubly ashamed.
Which would be appropriate: Your odiferous shame suggests that you're not actually a psychotic zombie of the LS school... That there might, in the deepest, dankest recesses of your corpus callosum, be an irregularly twitching synapse of decency, a troubled but undying recognition that the love you've been given and the love you've provided to others has some unpleasant but inviolable boundaries; that certain blessings come only from certain people.
Don't go, Jody! Without you, we're nothing.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 12:17 PM
Crid, say it. "A mother's love is absolutely indispensable and a child is doomed to mediocrity without it!"
"You can't trust the specials like the old time coppers when you can't find your way home!"
Patrick at November 4, 2010 12:34 PM
I think you're misquoting me; A mother's love is, when paired with the love of a father, what's best.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 12:43 PM
So all the interesting thought processes and tangents aside... Isn't the argument about what group of parents is best, kind of moot anyway? Nobody is preventing anyone from having children, right? Regardless if it's a woman working on her 9th baby with her 9th boyfriend, or a couple who have family histories of both mental issues AND twins on both sides of their families, or 2 guys who have found a surrogate to carry one of their children.
Who is stopping anyone? It's an excercise in mental gymnastics, sure, but I dun see where DCFS is showing up at a lesbian household's door and removing a kid, just because there's no father around.
When we bring children to this world we are making decisions for them, and well we might make sure they are good ones. But no-one is telling us with a law who can and cannot have children, so what is the point of this argument, anyway?
Seems like the principals long ago made up their minds.
SwissArmyD at November 4, 2010 12:52 PM
> what is the point of this argument, anyway?
If you're not concerned with what's best, you get to stay in bed all day long.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 1:01 PM
What I meant was, is some law being made somewhere to prosecute what one groups deems as best, because I'm not thinking there is...
SwissArmyD at November 4, 2010 1:31 PM
Unclear.
Laws, policies and social norms are presently being strengthened to deprive children of their birthright. When you say "prosecute", which side of this effort do you imagine yourself to be?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 4, 2010 2:21 PM
When I say prosecute I mean the writing and execution of a law against a group, depriving them of something...
I can't think of a time when the government has said they are doing something "in the best interest of children" where it hasn't worked out poorly, or where there were unexpected consequence. I am suspicious any time we want a government to enforce something like that.
I'm not blind to the fact that keeping the govt. out of it introduces some bad outcomes sometimes, but how do you fix? The easiest thing to do about the woman that continues to have a buncha kids with no job or fathers of any sort in sight is to sterilize her. But as pragmatic as that is, it is a viper nest of appalling reach against liberty and the choice to do what you will with your life.
the flip side of the coin, is that I don't think it is right to reward her fertility by giving her more money for having more kids. If the govt stay out of it entirely then they won't be rewarding perversely, nor will they be removing her will.
Yet? At the individual level of those children, this may be terrible. She may have kids anyway, and they may starve, so how do we fix that outcome?
In the same vein then, are we to tell 2 lesbian women that they cannot by law have IVF using donor sperm if they can afford it? If one of them gets knocked up the old fashioned way, but then decided she doesn't want to be with a guy anymore, should we remove the kid from her and place it in foster care? What will the rules be? Should the millions of single parents in this country have their children forcibly removed because there is no other parent around?
It is one thing to say "this is best" quite another to force that to happen with the heft of law. In some cases warranted, but most of the social engineering cases have gone poorly. Imagine giving the fed the power to decide who can and cannot have children... what's to say the in 10 years they don't change the rules in a way not envisioned?
SwissArmyD at November 4, 2010 3:13 PM
A few quick things
1. SwissArmyD - wether or not any hermaphadite has sucsefully reproduced is irrelevent. The point is Crid says there ave been zero exceptions EVER to the two sex mating system which just isnt true.
2. kishke said If safeguarding children means telling gay parents to shut up till hell freezes over, then that's what we should do. I think that in these questions, the welfare of the children should be our highest priority.
So then, warehousing kids in orphanages where they wont get adopted and age out of a system where they have NO parents is better then leting gays adopt? Are you fucking serious?
3. Crid no oe is saying a mother and a father arent the ideal situation. But lets be honset here, lesbians can get themselves pregnant, gay men can rent a uterus for gestation.
Did you people ever stop to consider in your quest to deny gays adoption all they did was do an end run around your blockade? The only people you screwed with were the kids that werent going to be adopted by hetero couples.
Maybe if you hadnt been so hell bent on practiceing your predjudeces gay couples would have adopted these kids and give them better futures rather then attempt to have their own offspring that you couldnt take away from them.
4.Crid - you arent just saying that a mother and a father are whats best, you are saying that a mother and a father are so much better than everything else that nothing else should ever be allowed even if that somthing else was better than the foster system which spits out kids that usually wind up in worse situations then the kids of single parents.
lujlp at November 4, 2010 6:47 PM
So then, warehousing kids in orphanages where they wont get adopted and age out of a system where they have NO parents is better then leting gays adopt?
I said nothing of the sort.
kishke at November 4, 2010 7:25 PM
If I may be so bold, the argument Crid is making boils down to one word:
Egoism.
Hey Skipper is late to the party at November 4, 2010 10:38 PM
Now I'll elaborate.
Assume a thirteen year old girl, Heather.
Who here thinks fit is irrelevant that Heather's first knowledge of manhood (not mere masculinity) is a father who loves her mother and treats her mother with every bit of respect that word connotes?
Who here thinks it is irrelevant that Heather's first knowledge of manhood is a father who loves her, and treats her with every bit of respect that word connotes?
Who here thinks that Heather would be better prepared to become a successful mother and wife if Heather has two mommies instead?
Now, ditching that heinous word "studies" for a moment, here is a thought experiment:
Let's assume 30,000 Heathers with fully committed parents. 10,000 Heathers with two mommies, 10,000 with two daddies, and 10,000 with a mommy and a daddy.
Statistically, which group of Heathers do you think will be best prepared to be successful mommies?
In order for Amy's et al's argument to hold water, the conclusion must be that the outcomes for all three groups would be identical; that having both genders as parents is wholly beside the point.
That is barking, ice skating on stilts, howling at the moon, foaming at the mouth mad.
(NB: Again speaking for Crid, he is not talking about adoptive parents, but rather those who choose to bring a child into this world.)
Hey Skipper at November 4, 2010 10:56 PM
I said nothing of the sort.
Posted by: kishke
No, you said "safeguarding children means telling gay parents to shut up till hell freezes over, then that's what we should do."
What could that possibly mean except contiuning to deny kids gay adoptive parents until you feel its safe?
And skipper, Crid has never limited himself to non orphans. Or non drug cooking parents
lujlp at November 5, 2010 1:57 AM
Oh yeah
Crid - Still waiting on that link
lujlp at November 5, 2010 1:58 AM
Crid: I think you're misquoting me; A mother's love is, when paired with the love of a father, what's best.
Then, of necessity, kids are raised by single parents, gay parents or no parents are inferior. How else could kids raised by co-ed parents have what's best?
So, say it. That's what you mean. Now say it. Go ahead. Let that be your motto. Kids without a loving mother and/or loving father are inferior.
Patrick at November 5, 2010 2:10 AM
luj: What I said was that in family matters we have to do what's best for children; that's the highest priority. It's not about gays; if you want to make it about them, that's your problem.
kishke at November 5, 2010 8:07 AM
So how is telling gay who want kids(and are willing to adopt the kids that white midle class hetero couples wont) to shut the fuck up helping kids?
FYI your the one who limited it to gay people. I notice you didnt add that we should also tell single women who buy sperm to go away as well, why is that?
lujlp at November 5, 2010 10:30 AM
> I mean the writing and execution
> of a law against a group
And again, I'm talking about the broader thinking about these things, which certainly give rise to the busybody instrusions your talking about.
And again you mentioned "groups"... I think you're stuck on that in a typical and unhelpful identity-politics kind of way.
> I am suspicious any time we
> want a government to enforce
> something like that.
"Enforcement" isn't the issue. Many local governments already permit (or purposefully execute) adoption by single mothers (as long as they're non-smokers). Should we be happy about that? You seem to want to contain your attention to social policies in which jackbooted thugs march into our lives and torture us. (Or, in your daydreams, sterilize people you don't like.)
There's more to evil than authoritarianism. I want people to have the horse sense not to try these dumb stunts... And when I do, I want them to suffer such certain and instantaneous response that no others are tempted to try it.
> Maybe if you hadnt been so hell
> bent on practiceing your
> predjudeces gay couples
Lou, you're not the one to cluck at people about prejudice. You are just not that alert, and you're not that kind. All you've got is this bitterness that you cling to... The value of having gays adopt foster children was in my earliest discussions of this topic. But you love your resentments more than anything.
> you arent just saying that a
> mother and a father are whats best
YES. Yes I am. It couldn't be any plainer. But you're in such a blind fury you can't see it. The word LOVING is invisible to you. This is not a fault in my reasoning. It's fault in your motivations. The more you ignore this, the more it appears that you WANT kids to hurt... Maybe it increase the chances that you'll be able to relate to them or soemthing. It's kind of a LS thing. You don't want to have to deal with anyone who hasn't suffered as you believe yourself to have suffered.
Good luck out there. When you want to start reading what other people actually say, it might be fun to converse with you.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 5, 2010 12:19 PM
> kids are raised by single parents, gay parents
> or no parents are inferior
What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father. It's not the children who are being judged.
Your brains are granite.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 5, 2010 1:19 PM
And yet you refuse to say loving gay parents MIGHT be better then hetro parents who cook meth in the nursery, why is that exactly?
Still waiting on that link too
lujlp at November 5, 2010 1:39 PM
> you refuse to say loving gay parents MIGHT be
> better then hetro parents who cook meth
It's irrelevant. You're trying to compare the best of gay with the worst of hetero, as if that was or should be the choice... No one in this years-old exchange has every been able to offer anything beyond this obviously fallacious, apples-&-oranges argument. I want to talk about what's best for kids. You want to talk about wealth, and hermaphrodites, and meth, and most of all, adult fulfillment.
See the word, Lou. Feel its power. Look it up if you have to: Loving.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 5, 2010 3:50 PM
Fair point crid, I do compare the best scenario gay parents to the worst scenario hetero parents - but only to highlight the fact that even in such extreme circumstances you still refuse to belive gay parents might do a good job
Still waiting on that link too
lujlp at November 5, 2010 4:06 PM
> you still refuse to belive gay parents
> might do a good job
"Good" is not the standard. I'm concerned with what's best. Don't you want what's best for kids?
Whatever link you're waiting for will never come, and there's not even energy to find what it might be. Tell you what... I'll trade it for a spriral-bound copy of your white paper on 2010's Crippling, Explosive Scourge of Hermaphrodism.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 5, 2010 4:16 PM
Crid: What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father. It's not the children who are being judged.
Your brains are granite.
And yours are mush, or absent. You're just inconsistent, as always.
The kids are the yardstick by which effective parenting is measured. (You are aware that where there's a parent, there's at least one kid, right?)
So, in determining what makes the best parents, obviously, you must look at the kids. And if you're so convinced that mommy and daddy is better than two mommies or two daddies, you're assuming that the products of gay marriages are inferior.
So, you think we can decide what's best for the kids without judging the kids? Congratulations. That is, by far, the dumbest thing ever said on this blog that I've seen.
Patrick at November 6, 2010 12:00 PM
> you're assuming that the products
> of gay marriages are inferior
Gay marriages have no "product". Every human being who every took a breath has been the product of a man and a woman... Often tragically, a man or woman who was ready to surrender their responsibilities due to incompetence or financial incentive.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 6, 2010 5:51 PM
Crid: Gay marriages have no "product".
Sure they do. Just because they didn't make the newborn, it doesn't follow that raising the baby to young adulthood doesn't constitute a product.
Patrick at November 7, 2010 3:57 AM
Nope. When gays want kids, they have to take them from straights.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 7, 2010 6:14 AM
FYI your the one who limited it to gay people. I notice you didnt add that we should also tell single women who buy sperm to go away as well, why is that?
That was the example given by Jody. I was responding to her argument. It was she who brought up gays, not I. Try reading, okay?
kishke at November 7, 2010 10:00 PM
Leave a comment